Habeas What?

[kbadr]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/

The Attorney General of our fine country says that the Constitution doesn't grant the right of habeas corpus.

God help us all.

[York99]

I see it, but I can't believe it.

The Attorny General doesn't know the law.

Oy!

[Wesley]

Clearly saying that you cannot take something away from someone doesn't inversely mean that they have a right to have that thing to begin with.

As it is beyond my pretty little head to worry about such things, I choose to fully and implicitly trust those in power to decode such complex legal issues for me and tell me what I can and cannot do.

God bless America and the brilliant legal minds that keep her afloat.

[Aden]

It's not so much that he doesn't know the law. It's really more a case of him taking a slimy yet semantically correct approach to interpreting it. His argument is that saying something cannot be taken away is not the same as saying it is actually there. While the court has interpreted the presence of habeas corpus to be implied, the Constitution does not specifically say so. It's a petty, word-mincing argument, but it is also an interpretation that one could argue quite effectively. I'm not going so far as to say he's a clever fellow, simply that we should not write this kind of thing off to him being an idiot. In fact to put it a different way, this kind of Constitutional interpretation goes so far beyond simple misunderstanding that it is very dangerous indeed.

[Aden]

Clearly saying that you cannot take something away from someone doesn't inversely mean that they have a right to have that thing to begin with.

Ha! Wes, you beat me to it while I was away from my desk!! Oh well.

[kbadr]

It's not so much that he doesn't know the law. It's really more a case of him taking a slimy yet semantically correct approach to interpreting it. His argument is that saying something cannot be taken away is not the same as saying it is actually there.

A slimy, and fantastic argument...except for the fact that the Constitution uses precisely that syntax in countless other places.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The semantic argument is pure crap. The guy's a douchebag who doesn't know the law.

[York99]

And Kareem beat me to that arguement. As for my original statement, I meant that he doesn't "know" the law as in he doesn't "get" it.

He's a slimy worm fucker, just like the rest of those maggots in DC... and I'm including most of everyone who plays for the Redskins.

[Aden]

It's not so much that he doesn't know the law. It's really more a case of him taking a slimy yet semantically correct approach to interpreting it. His argument is that saying something cannot be taken away is not the same as saying it is actually there.

A slimy, and fantastic argument...except for the fact that the Constitution uses precisely that syntax in countless other places.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The semantic argument is pure crap. The guy's a douchebag who doesn't know the law.

Slimy douchebags are the worst!!! Eeeeeew!

[kbadr]

Slimy douchebags are the worst!!! Eeeeeew!

I long for the day when the slimy douchebags of the current administration crawl back into the bile and hate-filled vaginae from whence they came.

[York99]

I long for the day when the slimy douchebags of the current administration crawl back into the bile and hate-filled vaginae from whence they came.

That's what they said about Nixon in his time. Now Nixon would be considered outstandingly good... not to mention the most progressive candidate in the field. Sad.

[kbadr]

That's what they said about Nixon in his time. Now Nixon would be considered outstandingly good... not to mention the most progressive candidate in the field. Sad.

So you're saying, what? Cheer up because it'll only get worse? Fantastic. Pardon me while I go apply for a gun permit.

[Jules]

Face it, sweets. Things are fucked.
Or, if you want to be more optimistic.
Don't give up! Things are turning round.

[shksprtx]

He's a slimy worm fucker, just like the rest of those maggots in DC... and I'm including most of everyone who plays for the Redskins.

You leave Coach Gibbs alone!

/Closet Tony Stewart fan...
//Few of you will be likely to grok that particular connection.

[York99]

That's what they said about Nixon in his time. Now Nixon would be considered outstandingly good... not to mention the most progressive candidate in the field. Sad.

So you're saying, what? Cheer up because it'll only get worse? Fantastic. Pardon me while I go apply for a gun permit.

I don't remember saying anything about cheering up. The outlook is grim... if you believe in continuing trends. Me? I believe in cycles. Some things are very down now... but any junky knows that you have to hit rock bottom before the recovery can begin.

[Marc Majcher]

Cheer up because it'll only get worse? Fantastic. Pardon me while I go apply for a gun permit.

This is Texas, son. We don't need no permits around here. I'll meetcha down at the sporting goods store.